This post is a reaction to two recent articles (1, 2) from HEP arXiv section (via KFC's blog), which are illustrating conceptual problems of formal approach of mainstream physics clearly.

These article quoted lacks the definition of emergence, duality, particle and unparticle concepts too much to be able to claim the things like "particles are dual to unparticles" or "quantum mechanics is of emergent nature" reliably. By my opinion it's even impossible to propose relevant formal description of concepts without robust definition of them at the semantic level. Without it no formal derivation can be interpreted and used by another theories. By AWT Universe is formed by infinitely dense environment, the observability of which corresponds the system of nested density fluctuations inside of dense gas (a condensing supercritical fluid in particular).

By AWT, our Universe could appear like fractal cloud similar to Perlin noise and after then every particle or artifact inside of our Universe becomes a sort of unparticle, observed from perspective of another one. This perspective introduces a sort of causality into chaotic view of our Universe, because only causal gradients (a “particles”) is what we can observe from this chaos.

Double relativity (DR) is based on dynamical relationship of two systems of reference: when one system of reference has been immobilized, it temporarily becomes an absolute point of reference. In this moment, at least two cases of DR were proposed so far, based on de Sitter and Poincaré invariant space-time group accordingly. Poincaré spacetime group appears slightly less general, being based on Lorentz symmetry of special relativity, while de Sitter spacetime group relies to equivalence principle of general relativity.

Therefore I still don’t see any evidence for particle - unparticle duality here: particles are always a subset of unparticles by DR, not a dual representation of it. And if it appears so from perspective of DR, then the DR is demonstrating its limits in this point, which is probably given by fact, it's a formal theory and the particle - unparticle duality is relevant for infinitely dense particle field, i.e. singular case of every formal theory. By AWT only infinitely implicit ("fractal") theory can become an equivalent of infinitely dense Aether and/or abstract unparticle model. This leads to requirement of triple, quadruple,... etc. relativity naturally. Only {inside of such/exsintric perspective of} "infinite relativity" the particle and unparticle models can become dual completely.

Second article suffers by similar causal problem, because by its name quantum mechanics can be virtually everything, until we define, what the “Emergent Phenomenon” really is. By AWT every “deeper level dynamics” is nothing else, then the particle dynamics of in many other deeper levels of particle fluctuations, i.e. the unparticle dynamics. Therefore unparticle geometrodynamics appears like best way, how to formalize emergence concept. But because it wasn't formalized yet, we cannot use it for derivation of any testable conclusions, predictions the less. Without predictions every article about "emergent physics" becomes just a metaphysics based on formal math up to level, we can talk about duality of rigor and postmodern philosophy. This is because the predictability of both formal, both nonformal hypothesis vanishes mutually and ceases to zero with increasing scope. Nonformal approach of philosophy becomes a quite powerful tool there, because both philosophy, both formal math is based on predicate logics.

Mainstream science uses positivist approach very often from pragmatic reasons by the same way, like medicinemans of ancient era have used their tools to keep their significance in the eyes of the rest of society. It handles the phenomena by formal way of various regression of reality without worrying, whether they're valid at the robust logics level - i.e. whether they're not an apparent nonsense, to say it by less diplomatic way. Such approach is analogous to epicycle solution of conceptual problems of geocentric model and it corresponds to solving of homework assignation without understanding of problem at the abstract level first. After all, the contemporary learning system purportedly trains new scientists to formal way of reality description, not understanding. This positivist approach my be a consequence of fact, scientists are payed for filling of publications with equations - but not for explanation of subject - so they just adopted to this situation.

From AWT perspective the unparticle concept is still ad hoced, as we can see it in the nested field of nested fluctuations of Boltzmann gas . We can paraphrase here a proverb "*The optimist sees the doughnut; the pessimist the hole*":

Where physicist sees a particle, mathematican can see a pure geometry only.

But can a "pure geometry" interact with/observe/describe a pure geometry? I really don't think so - or the Universe is one big cheap illussion and we're observing anything. Here's still some fifth element hidden behind particle concept. By my opinion it's a consequence of seemingly trivial fact, we are only part of Universe. Why?

If we could reveal a general explicit rule in sequence of prime numbers or in Fibonnacci spirals inside of growing pile of particles, we could postulate a very general emergence group, which would become nonlocal and very universal by such way. But I don't think, such group exists at all. If we are formed by pure geometry, then we should admit, then the pure geometry can observe/interacts with itself. Such identity would violate Goedel's theorems, Aether concept, virtually everything, what we know about reality so far.

Therefore the question is, why Universe is always larger, then our observable scope? I can feel, the limited speed of information spreading could answer this question, at least partially.

for crying out loud....chumps !!!

OdpovědětVymazatAnonymous,

OdpovědětVymazatIf I were Zephir, your comment would be deleted. Sorry, but when you insult, you aren't contributing to develop science, neither even conventional science. Do you think it's easy to have ideas about how nature works? If you think so, what are yours?, Surely, Zephir and me would be willing to listen.

The true is, I was too lazy to find out, what "chumps" really means in some on-line dictionary. Frankly, I considered it a echoic interjection of snivel originally..;-)

OdpovědětVymazatBy this way, comment of Anonymous missed its target completely.